Good morning. My name is Melanie Baise and I am a staff member of the Illinois South Project. Illinois South is a

not-for-profit organization founded in 1974 that does research, public education and advocacy on coal and agricultural issues throughout Illinois.

The individuals on this panel are from different states, but are attempting to deal with similar problems

the damage to their homes, land, and water resources caused by underground mining. Not only are these people and the many thousands they represent suffering, but underground mining is also leaving future generations with lands depleted of their productive value.

Underground mining and surface mining, although totally different technologies can have similar end results. Just as with surface mining, modern underground mining is destroying homes, dewatering streams and aquifers, degrading water quality, and diminishing the productivity of agricultural land.

What is different about the two forms of mining is that underground mining is the second class citizen of the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. It cannot be denied that the primary goal of SMCRA was to end the abuses of surface mining. While Section 516 addresses the surface effects of underground mining, the protections are not spelled out as specifically as those concerning surface mining. The industry, this Administration and the states have taken great advantage of

the higher level of legal and regulatory uncertainty.

The individuals on this panel will make clear, contrary to industry's public relations claim, that there is really nothing "planned and controlled" about subsidence from high extraction mining. Longwall mining, a form of high extraction mining currently being used in 12 states, sacrifices surface and subsurface resources to maximize coal production. In response to questions about subsidence control plans during mine permit application reviews, coal industry engineers typically respond that they can neither predict nor control the amount of subsidence and surface damage.

We imported longwalling from the Europeans, principally the British and Germans, who have utilized longwalling extensively for decades without significant damage. In importing the technology, U.S. coal operators learned well the high production aspects of longwalling. What industry did not import, however,

was the European's use of subsidence engineering to prevent damage. Subsidence engineering has been taught in German mining academies since 1931. It involves predicting ground movement, ascertaining the effects of movement on buildings, and minimizing subsidence damage. /1

Since the inception of longwalling in the U.S. the industry has made no real progress in subsidence engineering. As early as 1971, the U.S. Department of Interior recognized the need to find

83-763-88 - 6

ways to prevent and minimize subsidence damage.

"Controlled

subsidence" was described by the Interior Department as follows:

An alternate to supporting the overburden is the

complete systematic caving of the overlying rock, as is

done in longwall mining.

By inducing the rock to cave immediately after mining,
the danger of a later sudden collapse is eliminated.
Under induced caving, where applicable, the surface
will stabilize over a relatively short period of time.
But subsidence prevention is still often costly, and
much further research is necessary to develop
economical means of preventing or reducing subsidence
damage. (Emphasis added). /2

Today, sixteen years later, the industry is no further along in

its ability to engineer subsidence in a truly planned and controlled manner.

Exacerbating the problems for coalfield residents is the unwillingness of the federal Office of Surface Mining and the state regulatory authorities to implement the requirements Congress did place on underground operators in SMCRA. Underground mining and subsidence protections are not being enforced consistently by any state regulatory authority.

This Administration's assault on underground mining protections has been unceasing. In 1983, former Interior Secretary James Watt amended the federal rules to require coal operators to correct damage to structures, including homes, public buildings, wells and ponds, only if required by State law. The original federal rule made operators liable for damage regardless of State common law. The Watt rule was challenged and remanded by the federal District Court on procedural grounds. In 1987, Interior Secretary Donald Hodel finalized the new structures rule. Once again, operator liability for damage will be left to the states, there is no federal minimum standard which states must meet.

OSM attempted to justify its rule by assessing its economic impact. Six states were selected for analysis (WV, VA, PA, KY, IL and UT). OSM made what we believe to be grossly incorrect assumptions regarding the ability of subsidence victims to receive compensation from insurance programs and through civil suits.

In spite of this flawed analysis, OSM determined that the subsidence damage to dwellings in these six states would range from $2 to $10.5 million annually. Responsibility for this damage would shift from coal operators to land owners or insurance funds. OSM concluded this would be "... a negligible impact on the quality of the human environment."

Needless to

say, those families who will have to use their life savings to pay their share of this $2 to $10.5 million would not agree with